~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing a little more trash talk about Nadya Doud, the single mom in California who gave birth to octuplets this week. What started out as the glamorization of multiple births has now morphed into condemnation of everyone from the fertility doctor who started this chaos, to the grandmother of the octuplets who filed for bankruptcy last year. I have so many issues with this story, but for now I'll try to focus just a bit.It should come as no surprise that people might see multiple births as an opportunity to be famous. What with YouTube, American Idol and Survivor, just to name a few, we've raised a generation who not only strives to be famous at any cost (public humiliation seeming to be a favorite), but actually believes they are "entitled" fame. Add in a few shows like John and Kate Plus 8 and the new Duggar Family series, 17 Kids and Counting, and it becomes clear that our society financially rewards the "freak show."
Now, part of the problem stems from the fact that, with a rare exception, families cannot afford to raise 8 ... or 17 ... children. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's new Cost of Raising a Child Calculator, the average family will spend $171,926 raising a single child from birth through high school graduation. Multiply that times 14 (the number of children it is now known the Californian mom has) and you've got a total cost of $2,406,964. That number doesn't include the anticipated $1.2 million in medical expenses projected just in the birth, delivery and hospital care (2 months) for these octuplets. Being that they were born 9 weeks prematurely, it's likely they will have additional medical expenses - above and beyond what a parent can "normally" expect.
In this era of women's reproductive rights (at the expense of anyone elses rights - father's, embryo's, child's, society's, etc.) is it any surprise that a woman just might attempt to use that "favor" for her financial gain?
I've known a handful of single mother's who have intentionally had multiple children from different fathers. You might call this slutty behavior - I call it a business. You see, having 3 children with the same father brings in substantially less (usually at least 35%) child support than having 3 children from 3 different fathers. Is it such a stretch to consider that having octuplets, when one already has 6 children, might be an opportunity for a better life for all children involved?
I know, children as a commodity isn't anything anyone wants to acknowledge, but ask any divorced, non-custodial parent if they feel access to their children is dictated by the amount and timeliness of child support payments, and you'll realize we have accepted children as a commodity in our society. Is this the case with Ms. Doud? Unless she actually comes out and admits it (highly unlikely), we'll never know. Should it matter? Oh, I think it does, and I think if one really analyzes the situation, it speaks volumes to where we are ethically as a society, not just in Ms. Doud's fertility choices, but in our support of a media system that glorifies, then judges those choices.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
22 comments:
Well said. I often joke about having multiples..."if we have 8 we can buy a new house like Jon and Kate did honey!" I have 3 kids and that is hard.
I didn't know that if your children had different fathers that you would get more child support. Very interesting.
C, In most states, child support is a flat percentage of the non-custodial parent's income. Here in Illinois, it's 20% of net income for one child, 28% for two children, 32% for three children (assuming they are all the same parentage). If all three children are from different father's, the mother would collect 20% of the net income from three different men rather than 32% of the income of just one man)
I just keep getting stuck on the fact that a doctor, knowing (I guess?) that she had 6 children already, went ahead with fertility treatment. Multiple births are dangerous for both the mother and the babies. How do you justify the potential for multiple deaths when the mother in question already has a brood of children larger than average?
I know it's a sticky wicket. Where do you draw the line? What's the "magic number" of children before fertility treatments should be "discouraged?"
I totally agree with you. I get so sick of seeing people who don't need anymore children have children. I would love to be able to have a child and I can not and there are others just having baby's to get money just makes me so mad.
I still think there has to be an ulterior motive for so many children. Not just the latest eight, but the first six as well. And I'm not sure it was primarily financial. I swear, it would not surprise me if it comes out that they're part of some weird sect trying to populate the world with Gozar worshippers.. Or if she's just a nut.. Nothing surprises me anymore..
Children are definitely commodities. They're bargaining chips, meal tickets, tax benefits and lots of other bad things. And the problem exists across all racial, economic and political lines.
I think there is definitely an ethical argument to be had about the doctors who allowed a woman with six kids already to be apart of some fertility program. And there is an argument to be had about HER decision to do this after having had six kids already.
There are a lot of people focusing on the fact that she is unwed. Even if there was a husband in the picture, this would be a pretty disturbing story.
I can't for the life of me understand why so many people glorify families like the Duggers with their 18 kids. I think it's a case of people whose values and ideas are a bit out of whack.
Peee Esss: Children are definitely used as commodities. They are meal tickets, tax breaks, bargaining chips and worse for people. Talk about people whose values are out of whack!
I just want to see a picture of the mother. I want to know if she's hot...or not. Cheers!!
I won't comment on the objectives of the Doud woman as I have not followed this story. However, women's reproductive rights brings up a sore subject with me. There is no more discriminated against, class of people, than fathers. The question that each of us should be asking every day. The question that may become the most important question in our country sometime soon is this: Where are men's reproductive rights? In America, we would not tolerate the extreme discrimination that fathers get handed to them every day in any other group of people living in our country...... Just because you are a man and are suppose to be able to take it, can't make it right in my mind.
Worst of all, the discrimination is the law of the land.
this story is wrong on so many levels. More than anything, it is a heartwrenching statement of our society. I feel you stated an excellent point, truth is...we made her! But, oh these poor babies.
~AM
Biscuit, from what I've read, there seems to be some question as to whether the fertility treatments even took place in the U.S. I also understand that the team who eventually delivered the babies spoke to her regarding "selective reduction" and she declined. We'll likely never know the entire story.
Cornchip, I just hope the citizens of California don't mind raising these kids, because ultimately the financial responsibility will land on their shoulders.
Jay, oh yes! No segment of society is immune from using children as commodities ... unfortunately. And yes, the medical and social ethics of this situation, no matter what her marital status, are significant.
Dana,
I posted on this story on my blog yesterday and since then, some new info has come to light. It now is known that ALL of her kids were conceived with IVF, even the first six. They are all from the same sperm donor, who knows what she's doing. Her mother, in an interview has said that she (the mom) has been "obsessed" with having kids since she was a teen (she is now 32). They haven't said who did the implantation, but it is known that the woman herself works in a fertility clinic. I have a SIL who has served as a surrogate several times and I know that at most, doctors will implant 3 in hopes of getting one to take, but usually no more than 2. Experts are saying that implanting 8 is tantamount to malpractice as it places both the mom and the babies in jeopardy. Even twins and triplets are difficult pregnancies at best. It seems she was not directly trying to be famous, but seems willing to take advantage of the situation, because she is already receiving offers from car companies for a donated van, and supposedly has other offers in the works. While I do support peoples right to choose to have kids, I question the judgement of a woman who is already in a financial hardship, getting medical help to increase her hardship. With regards to the idea of kids for fame, I am very familiar with the Duggars, and they are well equipped to deal financially with or without their tv fame. While much hubub is made about the freaky aspect of big families, most of us are not having kids to become famous. I don't think she necessarily is either, but the real story is her selfishness at having kids DESPITE the fact that she is already in dire straits, and the complete lack of ethics shown by those who aided and abetted her in this choice.
FMD
Matt-Man, are you wanting to help her compete with the Duggers? *wink*
Doomed, I could do an entire series of posts on what I believe "womens' reproductive rights" have done to father's and how they've contributed to the demise of the family in the U.S. What? Do you want me to lose all of my readers?
AirmanMom, and the care of those children will fall on us as well. Funny how it comes full circle!
I noticed that you picked 8 instead of 6:) I'm laughing way too hard!
FMD, I need to go read your take on this! A couple of things though ...
(1) The grandmother claims the children are all from the same sperm donor - that is not confirmed.
(2) It was the Sun (a London tabloid) that reported she worked in a fertility clinic. All reputable sourced have found she was unemployed.
(3) The Duggars would not be equipped to financially provide for all of their children if they did not have a status of a non-profit (they are their own church) and if they didn't receive amazing number of donations due to their "celebrity" status
(4) Although I was careful to not claim the reason she did this was for fame, I do think it is feasible - and if not her, it won't be long before someone does ...
Not only is the financial responsibility an impossible mountain to climb with that many children, how about the more important issue: The emotional responsibility.
Knowing how much energy is required to raise just two boys, I can not begin to think how any one person could show the level of love and care for 14+ children.
I think this woman is 1/2 crazy. When she can't afford to care for all those children.. OUR tax dollars will pay. This is fraud.
It's a weird situation, but not without precedence. Throughout history, those who are glorified one day are crucified the next. Just ask Jesus.
Lee, I have nothing against big families, or even large single parent families, but this situation is really over the top. It's one thing to be in a marriage and mutually decide to have 6 children - this is something entirely different.
Jeff, 14 children - 7 and under - *shakes head* As I said, this story is wrong on so many levels.
Eathan, the great state of California is footing the medical bill, but it's situations like this - where the hospital will lose money on reimbursement from the state - that contribute to higher health costs.
Nick, thank you *warm smile*
Try about 1.2 million per child not for the total children for the medical care.
10 years ago a very good friend of ours had an incompetent cervix and was placed on bedrest for 4 weeks before she had her 2lb 6oz baby at 28 weeks. This baby spent almost 3 months in NICU. Our friend told us that the total for her hospitalization and the baby cost close to 2 million dollars.
This was 10 years ago. I am willing to be things cost more now.
I just think this is irresponsible.
The more I find out the less I understand.
Post a Comment